Tensions in Patient and Family Partner Storytelling in Clinical Education: Navigating the Who, What and How of Knowing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Increasingly, patient and family partners (PFPs) are asked to tell their stories in clinical education. Recognizing that current inclusion practices may not meaningfully shift power relations among PFPs, clinical teachers and learners, we sought to understand how power influences PFP storytelling in clinical education, with a focus on the tensions that PFPs may experience related to the knowledge that they hold and their status as knowers. METHODS: We recruited 11 PFP volunteers from an academic hospital in Toronto, Canada, to share their personal healthcare story in response to a prompt, participate in a semistructured interview and complete an online demographic survey. We used reflexive thematic analysis to gain insights into knowledge-related tensions that participants grappled with when creating their stories for clinical education. RESULTS: Our findings illustrate the tensions PFP storytellers experienced regarding their identities as knowers, their lived experience as valid knowledge and acceptable ways to share their knowledge in the contexts of clinical education. PFP storytellers had to negotiate their identities as knowers, seek an epistemic space for their lived experience and balance their personal emotions with social expectations of how one should or should not feel and express emotion. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that meaningful, equitable and ethical inclusion of PFPs and their stories in clinical education requires renewed understandings of and approaches to the knowledge that PFPs hold and share in clinical education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".